Hi Peter,
thanks for your additional insights - of all the comments from current
and former board members so far this is actually the one i can best
relate to. Of course it is easier for you since you are no more on the
board so without obligation to defend the statement made.
> > And i think this includes staying open to
> > the possibility that the compromise position you have now decided
> > on is a bad idea.
>> I'd strongly assume the board knows it was a bad idea. But it
> would look quite strange to the public if they either state it
> was a bad idea or change their decision yet again.
Yes, that is in the end a classic escalation of commitment problem.
Note with what you quoted i was not actually talking about the original
decision to overrule the DWG, i was talking about the forward-looking
parts of the statement issued.
> [...]
>> I for one, to be honest, had been impressed by the final
> explanation they published.
If you take that the original decision cannot be reverted as a given and
also that there is no majority on the board for abolishing the disputed
boundaries policy i concur that is a pretty impressive way to handle
this completely hopeless situation.
However i would like to point out that impressive does not necessarily
mean good. ;-)
The idea established with this statement that the board can at any time
declare exceptions from general OSMF policy without having to consult
anyone before or having to justify themselves for it afterwards is what
i find the most noteworthy element of the statement. This might be
seen as an affirmation of the capacity to act by the board but i see it
primarily as a significant weakening of the legitimacy of all OSMF
policy because from now on the possibility of board declared exceptions
from such rules will always stand in the room when such policy is
implemented.
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/